Pope John Paul the Great

  • Thread starter Thread starter S_Carton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
giuseppeTO said:
All of your references point to the opinions of theologians (weighty ones, I’ll admit, including the angelic doctor) but no dogmatic pronouncements that specifically deal with the infallibility of canonizations. Even St. Thomas stopped short of canonizations being a moral certitude and required of us to be called Catholic. My comments to the kind Brother stemmed from his remarks that we MUST believe a particular saint is a saint. That is not the case.
Click to expand...
I guess some people will use any excuse. 🤷
 
MIKE46 said:
Were any of these mentioned above during the activities mentioned acting as the head of the Catholic Church?

As far as then Bishop Roncali leading Sabbath services I would certainly like to see a link for verification. I know that many Jewish children were smuggled out with forged baptismal certificates and subsequently baptized into the faith under his care. So I am not entirely sure that I buy into the statement that he led Sabbath services for them. He might have celebrated Mass for them, but I doubt he led Jewish sabbath services. In fact how could he validly do so as he was not Jewish?
Click to expand...
He writes about it in his autobiography. You’ll have to read that. He can validly lead a sabbath service. There is no requirement in the Jewish law for validity. In fact it was a very common practice during WW II for priests and religious to lead these services underground when there was no Rabbi present. The Franciscans led hundreds of them in the Assisi Underground.

The fact that a person is a pope does not mean that he cannot pray with non-Catholics or non-Christians. In fact, canon laws don’t even apply to popes. Popes are the givers of the law. Whatever a pope does with the law can never be appealed. This is a point in canon law itself. He is the only authority whose use or misuse of the law cannot be appealed.

Even if there were such a prohibition in the law, which there is not, it would not apply to a reigning pope.

Also, it would be unfair to canonize or beatiful others who have done the same thing, pray with non-believers and deny it to a pope, when he’s above the law. That would be crazy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
giuseppeTO said:
All of your references point to the opinions of theologians (weighty ones, I’ll admit, including the angelic doctor) but no dogmatic pronouncements that specifically deal with the infallibility of canonizations. Even St. Thomas stopped short of canonizations being a moral certitude and required of us to be called Catholic. My comments to the kind Brother stemmed from his remarks that we MUST believe a particular saint is a saint. That is not the case.
Click to expand...
First we have to get one thing clear here. St. Thomas was never a pope and never intended to teach authoritatively. Therefore, the only teachings of St. Thomas that are authoritative are those that were adopted by the Church. St. Thomas also made some mistakes, such as his error on the Immculate Conception. We cannot use St. Thomas to cover every point in theology or Church teaching. We have to use him where the Church allows him to be used.

This is the offiicial teaching on canonization.

**Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in **imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The Church can only make obligatory what is a Truth. The obligation is imposed by a papal decree of some kind. In a formal canonization there is a prescribed cult or cultus to the saint and it is definitive. It cannot be changed. The reason that it cannot be changed is because you cannot change an infallible decree. If it is definitive, no one else, including a future pope, can change it. How does this fit into the tradition of infallibility? The decree of canonization is a statement of faith. A pope can make an infallible statement on any matter of faith and morals. The last sentence is very important. The pope can literally order the universal Church to venerate a particular saint without going through the whole process. This was the case with St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua and St. Clare of Assisi. Who would deny that they are truely saints? They went from being “servants of God” to saints without any of the itnermediate steps, by a simple order of the the popes.

There are other saints who were never canonized, because the process did not exist, such as the Apostles or the Fathers. But in the cases of Francis, Anthony and Clare, the process had been in existence over 100 years and the popes ignored it. These were called equivalent canonizations, not because they were invalid or because they are not infallible, but because they equal the formal canonization while bypassing the formality. The pope simply orders that it be so and binds the faithful to venerate these men and women as saints.

I know that the decree on the canonization of St. Francis is still available. The only thing that the pope says in it is that he believes what has been said about him by those who knew him. In a formal canonization there is mention of the process.

I don’t think anyone here wants to question the canonization of Francis, Anthony or Clare and risk the wrath of millions of Catholics, including popes and Franciscans.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
He writes about it in his autobiography. You’ll have to read that. He can validly lead a sabbath service. There is no requirement in the Jewish law for validity. In fact it was a very common practice during WW II for priests and religious to lead these services underground when there was no Rabbi present. The Franciscans led hundreds of them in the Assisi Underground.

The fact that a person is a pope does not mean that he cannot pray with non-Catholics or non-Christians. In fact, canon laws don’t even apply to popes. Popes are the givers of the law. Whatever a pope does with the law can never be appealed. This is a point in canon law itself. He is the only authority whose use or misuse of the law cannot be appealed.

Even if there were such a prohibition in the law, which there is not, it would not apply to a reigning pope.

Also, it would be unfair to canonize or beatiful others who have done the same thing, pray with non-believers and deny it to a pope, when he’s above the law. That would be crazy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I will look into that as I never heard of it. As I said, I know that many children were baptized into the faith under him, in fact I had thought all of them smuggled in were but I will check. As an aside to that though, war is in and of itself a desperate irrational situation that often calls for desparate actions that would not normally occur. I do not believe that such conditions existed which compelled John Paul II into his interreligious activities. And remember, it was not so much that he prayed with them, it was his statements and beliefs about them that plague him to this day. If it were a merely the act of praying I don’t think that a whole lot would have made about the issue.

As far as the Pope being above the law then would you not agree that it is incumbent upon him to be above board and beyond reproach so that even the slightest hint of iregularity would be avoided? An Admiral in the Navy for instance is held to a much higher standard of conduct and is expected to behave in a different manner than a seaman. Or do you hold to the belief that whatever a Pope does is automatically right as many apparently believe, at least in the case of John Paul II?
 
MIKE46 said:
Or do you hold to the belief that whatever a Pope does is automatically right as many apparently believe, at least in the case of John Paul II?
Click to expand...
A pope can make many imprudent choices. However, to charge a pope with heresy must require irrefutable proof of the highest order, and some authority to press such a claim.
 
pnewton said:
A pope can make many imprudent choices. However, to charge a pope with heresy must require irrefutable proof of the highest order, and some authority to press such a claim.
Click to expand...
Great answer. However it fails ti answer the pertinent question. I am not talking about imprudent choices but rather about right and wrong.
 
JReducation said:
First we have to get one thing clear here. St. Thomas was never a pope and never intended to teach authoritatively. Therefore, the only teachings of St. Thomas that are authoritative are those that were adopted by the Church. St. Thomas also made some mistakes, such as his error on the Immculate Conception. We cannot use St. Thomas to cover every point in theology or Church teaching. We have to use him where the Church allows him to be used.

This is the offiicial teaching on canonization.

Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in **imposing this obligation **the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

The Church can only make obligatory what is a Truth. The obligation is imposed by a papal decree of some kind. In a formal canonization there is a prescribed cult or cultus to the saint and it is definitive. It cannot be changed. The reason that it cannot be changed is because you cannot change an infallible decree. If it is definitive, no one else, including a future pope, can change it. How does this fit into the tradition of infallibility? The decree of canonization is a statement of faith. A pope can make an infallible statement on any matter of faith and morals. The last sentence is very important. The pope can literally order the universal Church to venerate a particular saint without going through the whole process. This was the case with St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua and St. Clare of Assisi. Who would deny that they are truely saints? They went from being “servants of God” to saints without any of the itnermediate steps, by a simple order of the the popes.

There are other saints who were never canonized, because the process did not exist, such as the Apostles or the Fathers. But in the cases of Francis, Anthony and Clare, the process had been in existence over 100 years and the popes ignored it. These were called equivalent canonizations, not because they were invalid or because they are not infallible, but because they equal the formal canonization while bypassing the formality. The pope simply orders that it be so and binds the faithful to venerate these men and women as saints.

I know that the decree on the canonization of St. Francis is still available. The only thing that the pope says in it is that he believes what has been said about him by those who knew him. In a formal canonization there is mention of the process.

I don’t think anyone here wants to question the canonization of Francis, Anthony or Clare and risk the wrath of millions of Catholics, including popes and Franciscans.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
You haven’t provided the proof of infallibility, as the First Vatican Council provided. Only what is generally accepted. All of the Pope’s pronouncements do not enjoy that assurance. V1 defined it for faith and morals … Nothing for canonizations.
 
JReducation said:
St. Francis of Assisi who prayed with the Muslims and who introduced Muslim customs into his order

St. Francis Xavier who prayed with Buddhists and wore had an orange cassock made for him to blend in with the Buddhists

St. Maximilian Kolbe who also prayed with Buddhists and who told our brothers going to Japan not to wear their Franciscan habit, but to procure the clothing of the Japanese coolie, because it was more culturally appropriate
Click to expand...
I’m interested in hearing your sources for these three.
 
RosaryCrusader said:
I’m interested in hearing your sources for these three.
Click to expand...
That makes two of us. :rolleyes:

Poor St. Francis! Everyone grabs him for something. I recently read that someone wanted to make him the Patron Saint of Green Peace- I kid you not.
 
ProVobis said:
So St Christopher and St. Philomena are still saints, albeit “demoted”?🙂
Click to expand...
Well, as you know, neither of these saints was formally canonized. But anyway, St. Christopher is still listed in the Roman Martyrology, and I don’t know anything about St. Philomena. I think it’s correct that they are still considered saints, though.
 
Lormar said:
That makes two of us. :rolleyes:

Poor St. Francis! Everyone grabs him for something. I recently read that someone wanted to make him the Patron Saint of Green Peace- I kid you not.
Click to expand...
Of course, he’s the ‘eco-Saint’ who loved animals and nature so much he would endorse population control, abortion, contraception, a disordered love of pets etc. (Sarcasm Alert)
 
John_of_Woking said:
JPII was not asleep at the wheel - although I agree that there have probably been better. Overall he was a very Holy Man. That said - that ecumenical prayer event in Assisi in the eighties was a big mistake…although that was maybe his advisors
Click to expand...
is that the one where the buddah statue was on top of the tabernacle?
 
Lormar said:
That makes two of us. :rolleyes:

Poor St. Francis! Everyone grabs him for something.
Click to expand...
Since he is a Franciscan, I see JR’s use of St. Francis in a different light than when others “grab him for something.”
 
VetA said:
is that the one where the buddah statue was on top of the tabernacle?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was behind the tabernacle, not on top of it. A surprisingly common misconception, given that there are pictures and everything. No statues or relics are to be placed on a tabernacle – and, at least, none was at Assisi.
 
I am really confused!:confused:

In reading this thread, it seems to that there is an under-lying theme that, to some on this forum, JPII was not “the great”, and that in some ways he was a borderline heretic.

I understand that we have the right to agree and disagree with each other and the Church on all topics. The key is that I have to understand that if I disagree with something that that Church holds true, that puts my relationship with the Church in jeopardy. It is a choice that I have to make.
It is one of those wonderful little reminders of that great gift of “free will”.😛

That said, what I do not understand, is how can anyone can claim to be a “Traditional Catholic” and say or think or actually believe some of the things I have seen in the forums.

So, JPII prayed with non-Catholics-
did anyone ever think he was praying for their conversion?! :rolleyes:

So, some of the things that came out of VII where not wonderful.
I am sorry. I had nothing to do do with it, as I was born in 1970.
I am sorry if you were hurt in 1969 when the changes came, and you lost the things that meant something to you (altar rails, Latin, etc., etc, etc).
I will even admidt that I am growing quite tired of the cry “It’s in the spirit of VII!”

That said, Pope Benedict XVI has “fast-tracked” JPII to sainthood.
That should tell us something!!😉

Part of being a Roman Catholic is being loyal to the magisterium.
Whether I like it or not, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger became Benedict XVI.
And as successor to Peter, he holds the keys, so we listen to him!
The Holy Spirit did this, throught the College of Cardinals,
that is the way it works. And to believe anything else, IMHO,
is neither “traditional” nor “catholic”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top